Psychological adjustment to Type 2 diabetes and relationship quality

School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast Western Health and Social Care Trust, Omagh Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK.
Diabetic Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.12). 04/2011; 28(4):487-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03214.x
Source: PubMed


  To examine the associations between psychological adjustment to Type 2 diabetes and the reported quality and type of relationships with partners.
  All participants (n=88) completed a number of questionnaires, including two measures of relationship quality: the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale, the Diabetes Quality of Life Scale and the ATT-19 (which assesses personal integration of diabetes). Additionally, HbA(1c) levels were obtained from medical notes.
  Measures of relationship quality significantly contributed to the explanation of two outcomes: personal integration of diabetes and satisfaction with the burden of self-management behaviours. More specifically, the findings demonstrate that a specific aspect of relationship quality--intimacy in recreational activities--is positively associated with the outcomes mentioned above.
  People with Type 2 diabetes who are not taking insulin, who share engagement in physical activities with their partner are more likely to be psychologically well-adjusted to their diagnosis of diabetes.

3 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Self-management (SM) behaviors reduce disease burden from advancing diabetic kidney disease. From a parent study about patients' transition experience to SM, this study report presents coping resources that support SM and barriers from two focus group interviews (n = 6). Ethnographic analysis identified two patterns: (a) mental health self-management characterized by coping, and (b) relational self-management characterized by social support. Practice implications include focused assessment of perceived social support and social network, dating advisement, and workplace management. Future study considerations include inquiry about diabetes and dating relationships and workplace resources for SM support.
    Issues in Mental Health Nursing 11/2012; 33(11):786-96. DOI:10.3109/01612840.2012.713446
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study analyzed whether family variables such as marital adjustment, partner support, family coping, and family stress moderated the relationship between negative beliefs about medicines and adherence to self-care behaviors (diet, glucose monitoring, exercise, foot care, and medication), in Type 2 diabetes patients. The sample was composed of 387 individuals with Type 2 diabetes, diagnosed in the past 12 months. Patients were assessed on self-care behaviors in diabetes, medication adherence, beliefs about medicines, family coping, family stress, marital adjustment, and partner support. The results showed marital adjustment, family coping, partner support, and family stress as moderators in the relationship between negative beliefs and adherence. Patients with negative beliefs regarding medicines, but who reported good marital adjustment and family coping were more likely to test their blood glucose; and if they reported low support from their partners were less likely to adhere to their prescribed diet. Finally, patients with negative beliefs about medicines, but who reported high family stress, were less likely to take their medication. The results emphasize the importance of family variables on adherence to self-care behaviors and medication. This study revealed the importance of including partners on interventions regarding Type 2 diabetes because they seem to play an important role in patient's adherence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Families Systems & Health 04/2014; 32(2). DOI:10.1037/fsh0000029 · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality of life (QoL) is an important aspect of wellbeing for people with chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, making it a noteworthy outcome. Knowledge about diabetes, attitudes, and self-management of diabetes are key factors that might directly or indirectly impact QoL. However, little is known about the inter-relationships between diabetes knowledge, attitudes, self-management and QoL among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of this study was to examine a model describing the relationship between diabetes knowledge, attitudes, self-management, and QoL of people with T2DM that is based on previous research linking pairs of these variables. A cross-sectional study design was employed in this research. A total of 291 participants, 192 males and 99 females, with T2DM, whose mean age was 55.8 (standard deviation = 11.09) completed questionnaires measuring diabetes knowledge (Diabetes Knowledge Scale), attitudes (Diabetes Integration Scale -19), self-management (Summary of Diabetes Self-care Activities Scale), including the aspects of diet, exercise, blood glucose testing, and foot care, and QoL (Diabetes Quality of Life Scale), comprising the aspects of satisfaction and impact on QoL respectively. To examine the model we proposed relating these variables, data were analysed using the path analysis. In the final model, diabetes knowledge was a significant predictor for attitudes and self-management in terms of blood glucose testing. Attitudes was a significant predictor for self-management in terms of diet. In addition, self-management in terms of blood glucose testing was a significant predictor of impact of QoL, and self-management in terms of diet was a significant predictor of satisfaction and impact of QoL. Self-management in terms of exercise was a significant predictor of satisfaction in QoL. The final model reflected a good fit (χ (2) (14) = 22.52, p = 0.069; CFI = 0.983; GFI = 0.983; RMSEA = 0.046). Diabetes knowledge, attitudes, and self-management are important factors that can impact the QoL among people with type 2 diabetes.
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 12/2015; 13(1):129. DOI:10.1186/s12955-015-0303-8 · 2.12 Impact Factor